Hundreds of TPODs have been published since the summer of 2004. In particular, we invite discussion of present and recent TPODs, perhaps with additional links to earlier TPOD pages. Suggestions for future pages will be welcome. Effective TPOD drafts will be MORE than welcome and could be your opportunity to become a more active part of the Thunderbolts team.

Do the spectral signatures of local globular clusters match that used to define quasars (i.e., 'anomalously ' highly red-shifted?

Is there a receding (red) doppler shift that would indicate cluster translation out and away from our galaxy?Do the local globular clusters, if they are moving, move in the plane of the Milky Way, normal to the center of the galaxy, or in an oblique direction, and can it be inferred if their vectors track back through the center of our galaxy?

If there ARE quasar-like redshifts, do they fall into the typical quantized values seen elsewhere with groups of quasars?

Are there "disturbed" or actively turbulent areas of stars or clouds interior to these clusters, which might indicate that they passed through arms or starry regions in the past? This last may be difficult to spot from our close-in position to this action, and the possibility that obstructing stars and dust could hide such activity, seen on some plates of other galaxies where quasars are being ejected through or along arms of galaxies (Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies).

It is fascinating to try to see if our own galaxy's globular star clusters might be related to other quasars seen at great distances from us. If these globulars, particularly their individual stars which are readily resolved, indicate higher than expected redshifts, it would disrupt conventional thinking about galactic evolution and operation and could elicit a comment or a paper from Dr. Arp himself.

Dark energy is inferred from a Hubble expansion which is slower at epochs which are earlier than ours. But evidence reviewed here shows H0 for nearby galaxies is actually less than currently adopted and would instead require deceleration to reach the current value...The same considerations apply to Dark Matter. But with particle massesgrowing with time, the condensation from plasmoid to proto galaxy not only does away with the need for unseen “dark matter” but also explains the intrinsic (non-velocity) redshifts of younger matter.

I think the reason that they don't is that they have other full-time activities that take up their available time. Also, they are not "founders" in the sense that they have ever been active on this Forum, and I doubt that they ever read it.

The EU, on the other hand, references their books and papers constantly, Peratt for his work on plasma physics (the scientific foundation of the EU paradigm, which is broader than just its physics foundation) and his scientific studies of petroglyphs worldwide as an element of universal observation long ago of a distinctive plasma formation near the south polar regions; and Arp for his ongoing work in astronomy, in particular the intrinsic redshifts of astronomical objects, quasars and quantization thereof, as it casts well-researched doubt on some of the long-held tenets of the Big Bang Theory and the concept that redshift is only an indicator of distance, thus age, and its increase with distance is evidence of the increasing expansion of the Universe, which ideas the EU does not buy into.

Before we talk about why clusters should or shouldn't have intrinsic quantized redshift, I think it is important to understand why quasars have intrinsic quantized redshift. This is a no brainer. Let's put together:

1. Halton Arp shows that quasars appear at the ends of jets shooting out of galaxies.2. Ari Brynjolfsson shows that plasma can cause redshift.3. James Weninger shows that plasma forms a cuspy halo around a galaxy (our supposed dark matter).

So it is simple: jets of matter shooting out from a galaxy cause a shock wave in the plasma surrounding the galaxy. The higher density of plasma in this shock wave causes a higher plasma induced redshift for the mass at the head of the shockwave. That is why the quasar appears redshifted compared to the galaxy. The reason redshifts are quantized is simply because shockwaves are quantized. Just as the plasma can't be compressed beyond a certain point, the plasma density induced redshift can not increase beyond this point.

So it is simple: jets of matter shooting out from a galaxy cause a shock wave in the plasma surrounding the galaxy. The higher density of plasma in this shock wave causes a higher plasma induced redshift for the mass at the head of the shockwave. That is why the quasar appears redshifted compared to the galaxy. The reason redshifts are quantized is simply because shockwaves are quantized. Just as the plasma can't be compressed beyond a certain point, the plasma density induced redshift can not increase beyond this point.

Hi Celeste,

So if you will just define that "density", you will definitely have something going there.

Hi Seasmith, Yes, we do have to talk about the density of plasma both around a galaxy in general, and also around the quasars. This will allow us to answer two questions.1. Q. Why do we only see quasars at a distance from the core of the galaxy? It sure would have been easier for Arp to show the association between galaxies and quasars if we could see two quasars just emerging from a galaxy. Why don't we see this? A. Let's start with an analogy. You are familiar with how a sonic boom happens as a plane crosses the sound barrier? A slow plane has sound spreading out in front of it, a very fast plane has sound spreading out behind it, but right at the sound barrier, those sound waves just pile up (huge density) in front of the plane. Well with quasars we have the same thing in reverse. The jet starts out fast and slows to the "plasma barrier", where the plasma density builds in front of the jet causing that insane redshift. I know this is not a quantitative answer, but it will help conceptually.

2. Q. If our dark matter halo is really plasma as James Weninger says, and the mainstream says that there is about 10 times as much dark matter around a galaxy as there is "normal" matter, then shouldn't all those electrons out there cause scattering? How could a telescope like Hubble get clear pictures of distant galaxies? A. Here we can get a little more quantitative. The dark matter halo (in James or mainstream "maps" of dark matter) has a radius at least as great as the radius of the galactic disk. Plus it is a more spherical halo, not like the thin disk of matter in the galaxy. Sorry, I'm late for work, but later I hope to show that we can show a density too low to expect electrons intercepting a photon

I'll get back to the density of plasma in the halo (and show that it can't cause significant scattering), but first, how do I know that quasars are an interaction between those jets and the plasma (dark matter) halo? James Weninger says that the halo is plasma, where more electrons are gravitationally selected to the outer portion of the halo (extending outside the visible galaxy). So what is happening that let's us know that the jets are hitting those electrons? Halton Arp showed evidence of an x-ray emitting filament extending from the quasars, back to the galaxy emitting the quasars. THAT is the evidence that the jets are hitting those electrons. Halton, if you're out there, I know those x-ray connections are not just "noise".

O.K., back to the density of plasma in the halo. Let's say the mainstream is about right that there is about 10 times as much dark matter as visible matter in a galaxy, and that Weninger is right that this is plasma. That sure sounds like there should be enough electrons out there to do some serious scattering, right? Remember though, the visible matter is contained in roughly a disk 100,000 ly wide by 1000 ly thick. The halo of dark matter(gravitationally segregated plasma) is more like a sphere with a radius of well OVER 100,000 ly ,with the electron density skewed proportionately to the outer portion of the halo. Look up the cross section for photons scattering off electrons if you want, and do the math. But as you can already see, light from a distant galaxy is not going to be significantly scattered before we see it.

Sorry for running on, but one more thing: Halton Arp suggests that quasars are sources of very high energy cosmic rays. Do you see why he must be right? If quasars are in fact points were electrons are piling up in a shock wave in front of those jets, then they provide the electric field to accelerate ions to very high energies . Again, I think this is so simple it must be right.